Policy analysis paper final
AshleyMarks
32,711 views
17 slides
May 19, 2015
Slide 1 of 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
About This Presentation
No description available for this slideshow.
Slide Content
!
Policy Portfolio: SB 1168
Ashley Marks
Christopher Newport University
Social Work Department
March 10, 2015
Policy Portfolio: SB 1168
Ashley Marks
Christopher Newport University
Social Work Department
March 10, 2015
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
2!
Policy Analysis
Introductory Paragraph
This policy analysis will be examining a bill that was proposed in the senate on January
13, 2015: SB1168, “Family day homes and child day centers; local government to report
business licenses issued.” This bill is an amendment that would make children under the age of
six count towards the number of children being watched to legally define a home as a family day
home, would require the regulation of family day homes such that they are licensed or file a
written declaration of intent to operate their day home, and would require background checks for
people working or volunteering at a family day home. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the
social problem that the bill addresses, what the bill proposes to do, how the bill would be
implemented, and the effectiveness of the bill.
Definition of the Social Problem
The main social problem being addressed in the bill is the lack of regulation of family
day homes. Many people are operating family day homes that are unlicensed or not under
regulation of the government that could potentially pose threats to the children under the care of
these homes. According to the data provided by the Virginia Department of Social Services
(2014) for another bill, SB1069, that was incorporated into this bill, while there is no way of
knowing how many unlicensed or unregistered family day homes exist in the country or in
Virginia alone, “the department estimates that as of June 30, 2014, there were approximately
63,049 unregulated family day home providers in Virginia.”
This social problem has many consequences for the government, the owners of the
unregistered day homes, and the families with children cared for by unregistered day homes. For
the government, their consequences are mostly fiscal. People are evading the costs of licensing
!
2!
Policy Analysis
Introductory Paragraph
This policy analysis will be examining a bill that was proposed in the senate on January
13, 2015: SB1168, “Family day homes and child day centers; local government to report
business licenses issued.” This bill is an amendment that would make children under the age of
six count towards the number of children being watched to legally define a home as a family day
home, would require the regulation of family day homes such that they are licensed or file a
written declaration of intent to operate their day home, and would require background checks for
people working or volunteering at a family day home. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the
social problem that the bill addresses, what the bill proposes to do, how the bill would be
implemented, and the effectiveness of the bill.
Definition of the Social Problem
The main social problem being addressed in the bill is the lack of regulation of family
day homes. Many people are operating family day homes that are unlicensed or not under
regulation of the government that could potentially pose threats to the children under the care of
these homes. According to the data provided by the Virginia Department of Social Services
(2014) for another bill, SB1069, that was incorporated into this bill, while there is no way of
knowing how many unlicensed or unregistered family day homes exist in the country or in
Virginia alone, “the department estimates that as of June 30, 2014, there were approximately
63,049 unregulated family day home providers in Virginia.”
This social problem has many consequences for the government, the owners of the
unregistered day homes, and the families with children cared for by unregistered day homes. For
the government, their consequences are mostly fiscal. People are evading the costs of licensing
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
3!
and legally running their day home, thus meaning the government is not making the money they
should be and the people who own the homes are potentially untaxed on their profits.
The owners of these day homes, outside of the fiscal aspect, may have consequences
from their employees or volunteers being involved in criminal activities that they may not know
of if background checks were not done. Not having background checks or being licensed could
save the owners of family day homes money, but could also endanger themselves and children.
Lastly, parents and children are impacted by the lack of regulation of family day homes.
While prices could potentially be cheaper for parents if their child is being watched by a local,
unlicensed day home, as mentioned previously, the people working at the day home may not
have had background checks prior to being employed. Again, this has a significant consequence
as it means children could be being cared for by people involved in criminal activities and the
child, parents, and even owners of the family day home could be unaware.
The main cause of the problem is the fact that there has not been enough legislation on
the regulation of these types of child day care facilities. In addition, financial causes also exist,
such as the need for inexpensive childcare. When parents cannot afford to send their children to a
regulated child day care agency, they often seek cheaper local options, which often end up being
family day homes. The main value behind the bill’s definition of the problem and the bill’s
introduction in general is the importance of protecting children in not only child welfare
agencies, but in any setting where children are put in the hands of adults outside of their legal
guardians. Parents should feel that those working for family day homes and any child welfare
agency are people who will keep their children safe, not endanger them.
These problems have existed since childcare agencies began being established. Progress
has been made in terms of background checks as many agencies either voluntarily or mandatorily
!
3!
and legally running their day home, thus meaning the government is not making the money they
should be and the people who own the homes are potentially untaxed on their profits.
The owners of these day homes, outside of the fiscal aspect, may have consequences
from their employees or volunteers being involved in criminal activities that they may not know
of if background checks were not done. Not having background checks or being licensed could
save the owners of family day homes money, but could also endanger themselves and children.
Lastly, parents and children are impacted by the lack of regulation of family day homes.
While prices could potentially be cheaper for parents if their child is being watched by a local,
unlicensed day home, as mentioned previously, the people working at the day home may not
have had background checks prior to being employed. Again, this has a significant consequence
as it means children could be being cared for by people involved in criminal activities and the
child, parents, and even owners of the family day home could be unaware.
The main cause of the problem is the fact that there has not been enough legislation on
the regulation of these types of child day care facilities. In addition, financial causes also exist,
such as the need for inexpensive childcare. When parents cannot afford to send their children to a
regulated child day care agency, they often seek cheaper local options, which often end up being
family day homes. The main value behind the bill’s definition of the problem and the bill’s
introduction in general is the importance of protecting children in not only child welfare
agencies, but in any setting where children are put in the hands of adults outside of their legal
guardians. Parents should feel that those working for family day homes and any child welfare
agency are people who will keep their children safe, not endanger them.
These problems have existed since childcare agencies began being established. Progress
has been made in terms of background checks as many agencies either voluntarily or mandatorily
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
4!
give their volunteers and employees background checks, however many still do not. Jeff
Schweers (2009) describes the history and progression of the problem well in an article in USA
Today, “Volunteers screened before working with children, elderly.” In this article, Schweers
(2009) states “using background checks to screen volunteers has grown steadily since 1993,
when the National Child Protection Act became law…” Many individual agencies that involve
working with children, disabled individuals, or the elderly background check their employees
and volunteers already, even though they may not be required to (Schweers, 2009). Some states
have introduced laws that require background checks on certain individuals. For example,
Minnesota as of 2008 requires volunteers who work with children, the disabled, the elderly, and
other “vulnerable populations” to go through background checks (Schweers, 2009). Other states
like Ohio encourage “youth organizations to require background checks, but has no regulatory
authority” (Schweers, 2009).
There is no specific reason for the introduction of this bill this year, however year by year
progression has been made on bills creating regulations that promote the safety of children
around the country, such as those laws mentioned above. One thing that many people agree on is
the importance of the safety of children. It is possible that, from seeing the legislation that other
states have proposed and put into place as laws involving childcare and background checks for
people working with children, legislators such as Senator Emmett Hanger in Virginia decided to
propose a similar bill (S. Hanger, personal communication, February 17, 2015). Hanger’s
legislative aide suggested that Hanger proposed this bill because it is a necessary step towards
ensuring the safety of children, which is a priority (S. Hanger, personal communication,
February 17, 2015). Despite his view on the importance of the protection of individual rights, he
believes that the safety of children is reason for background checks on people wishing to care for
!
4!
give their volunteers and employees background checks, however many still do not. Jeff
Schweers (2009) describes the history and progression of the problem well in an article in USA
Today, “Volunteers screened before working with children, elderly.” In this article, Schweers
(2009) states “using background checks to screen volunteers has grown steadily since 1993,
when the National Child Protection Act became law…” Many individual agencies that involve
working with children, disabled individuals, or the elderly background check their employees
and volunteers already, even though they may not be required to (Schweers, 2009). Some states
have introduced laws that require background checks on certain individuals. For example,
Minnesota as of 2008 requires volunteers who work with children, the disabled, the elderly, and
other “vulnerable populations” to go through background checks (Schweers, 2009). Other states
like Ohio encourage “youth organizations to require background checks, but has no regulatory
authority” (Schweers, 2009).
There is no specific reason for the introduction of this bill this year, however year by year
progression has been made on bills creating regulations that promote the safety of children
around the country, such as those laws mentioned above. One thing that many people agree on is
the importance of the safety of children. It is possible that, from seeing the legislation that other
states have proposed and put into place as laws involving childcare and background checks for
people working with children, legislators such as Senator Emmett Hanger in Virginia decided to
propose a similar bill (S. Hanger, personal communication, February 17, 2015). Hanger’s
legislative aide suggested that Hanger proposed this bill because it is a necessary step towards
ensuring the safety of children, which is a priority (S. Hanger, personal communication,
February 17, 2015). Despite his view on the importance of the protection of individual rights, he
believes that the safety of children is reason for background checks on people wishing to care for
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
5!
them. It is hard to find other specific reasons, as there are few statistics on family day homes and
volunteers of such agencies (S. Hanger, personal communication, February 17, 2015). One of the
main issues with this type of social problem is that, because it concerns businesses that are not
licensed or government regulated, little is known about what goes on and it is hard to develop
significant and valid statistical information on them.
Overview of the Bill
As mentioned in the introductory paragraph, SB1168 was introduced to the Senate of
Virginia on January 13, 2015. It was then referred to the committee on Rehabilitation and Social
Services where it was assigned to the subcommittee for Childcare. The patron of this bill is
Senator Emmett Hanger. Senator Hanger is a republican from district 24. He is on the following
committees: Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources, Finance, Local Government,
Rehabilitation and Social Services, and Rules. The main nine issues he states he is interested in
are agriculture, education, environment, gun rights, illegal immigration, social issues, Medicaid,
tax reform and spending, and transportation (Hanger Campaign Committee, 2014). Senator
Hanger, as mentioned, is a supported of the protection of individual rights and also supports
individual responsibility (Hanger Campaign Committee, 2014). In terms of his personal life,
Senator Hanger is married with five children and “enough grandchildren to start their own voting
precinct when they are of age” (Hanger Campaign Committee, 2014). This may influence his
decision to patron a bill that focuses on the safety of children.
The first bill in Virginia that attempted to regulate family day homes was proposed in
1995: HB 2358, “Family day homes.” This bill just proposed legislation to determine who should
be licensed and the specifics as to when and how the licensing should occur. Since then, much
legislation has been proposed and every year, legislation is proposed that attempts to regulate
!
5!
them. It is hard to find other specific reasons, as there are few statistics on family day homes and
volunteers of such agencies (S. Hanger, personal communication, February 17, 2015). One of the
main issues with this type of social problem is that, because it concerns businesses that are not
licensed or government regulated, little is known about what goes on and it is hard to develop
significant and valid statistical information on them.
Overview of the Bill
As mentioned in the introductory paragraph, SB1168 was introduced to the Senate of
Virginia on January 13, 2015. It was then referred to the committee on Rehabilitation and Social
Services where it was assigned to the subcommittee for Childcare. The patron of this bill is
Senator Emmett Hanger. Senator Hanger is a republican from district 24. He is on the following
committees: Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources, Finance, Local Government,
Rehabilitation and Social Services, and Rules. The main nine issues he states he is interested in
are agriculture, education, environment, gun rights, illegal immigration, social issues, Medicaid,
tax reform and spending, and transportation (Hanger Campaign Committee, 2014). Senator
Hanger, as mentioned, is a supported of the protection of individual rights and also supports
individual responsibility (Hanger Campaign Committee, 2014). In terms of his personal life,
Senator Hanger is married with five children and “enough grandchildren to start their own voting
precinct when they are of age” (Hanger Campaign Committee, 2014). This may influence his
decision to patron a bill that focuses on the safety of children.
The first bill in Virginia that attempted to regulate family day homes was proposed in
1995: HB 2358, “Family day homes.” This bill just proposed legislation to determine who should
be licensed and the specifics as to when and how the licensing should occur. Since then, much
legislation has been proposed and every year, legislation is proposed that attempts to regulate
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
6!
such facilities more and more. In addition, just this year a bill that was very similar to SB1168
was proposed in the House: HB 1152, “Child welfare agencies; regulation, national criminal
history record check requirement.” It was an almost identical bill in the beginning, however it
did not pass committee in the House. SB 1168 that is being analyzed in this paper was passed
after some minor changes in the Senate, however the changes that it has undergone have changed
the bill greatly so the two are not the same anymore. As the bill continues to be reviewed in
conference between the House and the Senate, it is likely that other changes will be made that
will impact how the bill addresses the problem of lack of regulation of family day home
facilities. As mentioned in previous paragraphs, other states have aimed to tackle this social
problem by proposing their own legislation that requires things such as background checks on
employees and volunteers, such as Minnesota (Schweers, 2009).
Implementation of the Bill/Law
This bill, if passed, would have the objective of all family day homes fitting under the
requirements described under the bill, which stated that a household caring for 5 or more
children, including family if the family was age 6 or younger, becoming licensed and having
background checks done on all employees and volunteers, including people residing in the
household. The House has made some revisions to the bill, however they were initially rejected
by the Senate and are being reviewed in a conference committee currently. The Department of
Social Services would be responsible for carrying out the new law and enforcing it, especially in
terms of making sure that the Child Care and Development Block Grant meets all requirements
and follows government regulations, as stated in the impact statement of the bill. The bill’s
impact statement also states that the Department of Social Services must “report on the
requirements established in the Child Care and Development Block Grant to the Senate
!
6!
such facilities more and more. In addition, just this year a bill that was very similar to SB1168
was proposed in the House: HB 1152, “Child welfare agencies; regulation, national criminal
history record check requirement.” It was an almost identical bill in the beginning, however it
did not pass committee in the House. SB 1168 that is being analyzed in this paper was passed
after some minor changes in the Senate, however the changes that it has undergone have changed
the bill greatly so the two are not the same anymore. As the bill continues to be reviewed in
conference between the House and the Senate, it is likely that other changes will be made that
will impact how the bill addresses the problem of lack of regulation of family day home
facilities. As mentioned in previous paragraphs, other states have aimed to tackle this social
problem by proposing their own legislation that requires things such as background checks on
employees and volunteers, such as Minnesota (Schweers, 2009).
Implementation of the Bill/Law
This bill, if passed, would have the objective of all family day homes fitting under the
requirements described under the bill, which stated that a household caring for 5 or more
children, including family if the family was age 6 or younger, becoming licensed and having
background checks done on all employees and volunteers, including people residing in the
household. The House has made some revisions to the bill, however they were initially rejected
by the Senate and are being reviewed in a conference committee currently. The Department of
Social Services would be responsible for carrying out the new law and enforcing it, especially in
terms of making sure that the Child Care and Development Block Grant meets all requirements
and follows government regulations, as stated in the impact statement of the bill. The bill’s
impact statement also states that the Department of Social Services must “report on the
requirements established in the Child Care and Development Block Grant to the Senate
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
7!
Committee on Education and Health and the House Committee on Health, Welfare and
Institutions by December 1, 2015.”
Many individuals and groups will potentially benefit if this bill is passed into law. The
main group that will benefit is the families who have children in family day homes as their
children will be safer and the parents will have the comfort of knowing that everyone who is
caring for their child has been background checked and licensed properly. Another group that
will benefit is the day home’s owners. While it is possible that the bill could potentially cost
them money in terms of licensing and the fee for background checks, they will be able to know
that everyone who works for them is safe and even possibly gain business by being able to tell
parents that they are a licensed facility where everyone has been background checked for the
safety of children. The government will also profit from this bill. The government will make
money on background checks and licensing fees. This is also a big step in working towards
regulations for child safety, so organizations advocating for legislation such as this will benefit,
as it is a step in the right direction.
While this bill has many potential benefits, it will also cost money to implement. The
impact statement states that the introduced budget of the bill includes $2.7 million as general
funds to support the costs that are associated with having licensure as a condition of participating
in the childcare subsidy program. The Department of Social Services has estimated that the total
cost of implementation would be about $1 million in the first year and $655,343 each year
following. However, the impact statement states that the Department of Social Services will
“establish a background check fee that is sufficient to allow it to break even on the operating
cost,” meaning the government will make all or most of the money back. This means that the
current fee would need to be increased by $62: $25 for the Office of Background Investigations
!
7!
Committee on Education and Health and the House Committee on Health, Welfare and
Institutions by December 1, 2015.”
Many individuals and groups will potentially benefit if this bill is passed into law. The
main group that will benefit is the families who have children in family day homes as their
children will be safer and the parents will have the comfort of knowing that everyone who is
caring for their child has been background checked and licensed properly. Another group that
will benefit is the day home’s owners. While it is possible that the bill could potentially cost
them money in terms of licensing and the fee for background checks, they will be able to know
that everyone who works for them is safe and even possibly gain business by being able to tell
parents that they are a licensed facility where everyone has been background checked for the
safety of children. The government will also profit from this bill. The government will make
money on background checks and licensing fees. This is also a big step in working towards
regulations for child safety, so organizations advocating for legislation such as this will benefit,
as it is a step in the right direction.
While this bill has many potential benefits, it will also cost money to implement. The
impact statement states that the introduced budget of the bill includes $2.7 million as general
funds to support the costs that are associated with having licensure as a condition of participating
in the childcare subsidy program. The Department of Social Services has estimated that the total
cost of implementation would be about $1 million in the first year and $655,343 each year
following. However, the impact statement states that the Department of Social Services will
“establish a background check fee that is sufficient to allow it to break even on the operating
cost,” meaning the government will make all or most of the money back. This means that the
current fee would need to be increased by $62: $25 for the Office of Background Investigations
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
8!
administration fee, $13 for the Virginia State Police administration fee, and a $24 fee for the
FBI.
Analysis of the Bill
As mentioned, the main social problem being addressed by this bill is the lack of
regulation of family day homes in Virginia. While the problem may not be completely solved by
this bill, as more regulation might be needed, this bill is an important step in the right direction,
as mentioned previously. The bill does have goals and objectives that match the defined problem,
as the objectives of this bill would help to regulate family day homes by requiring licensure and
background checks. The policies will impact all day homes that match the definition of having 5
or more children, and as mentioned these children include any family members under the age of
6 that will be in the day home as well. While there are some people or facilities who care for less
than 5 children that some would argue should be regulated as family day homes as well, they do
not meet the requirements and can choose to remain unlicensed and go without background
checks for their employees and volunteers. This bill does fit the population of family day homes
and people with children in family day homes, however if the definition of family day homes
were changed the population that it impacts would change.
While this bill would be adequate at addressing some aspects of the social problem, it is
just a starting point for the regulation of these types of facilities. It is likely that, if this bill is
passed, future bills may be proposed to increase regulation depending on how much this
legislation positively impacts the community. It would adequately address the social problem,
however, as it really begins the regulation of these facilities that, prior to this bill, are legally
unregulated and can go unlicensed and without background checks of any employees or
volunteers.
!
8!
administration fee, $13 for the Virginia State Police administration fee, and a $24 fee for the
FBI.
Analysis of the Bill
As mentioned, the main social problem being addressed by this bill is the lack of
regulation of family day homes in Virginia. While the problem may not be completely solved by
this bill, as more regulation might be needed, this bill is an important step in the right direction,
as mentioned previously. The bill does have goals and objectives that match the defined problem,
as the objectives of this bill would help to regulate family day homes by requiring licensure and
background checks. The policies will impact all day homes that match the definition of having 5
or more children, and as mentioned these children include any family members under the age of
6 that will be in the day home as well. While there are some people or facilities who care for less
than 5 children that some would argue should be regulated as family day homes as well, they do
not meet the requirements and can choose to remain unlicensed and go without background
checks for their employees and volunteers. This bill does fit the population of family day homes
and people with children in family day homes, however if the definition of family day homes
were changed the population that it impacts would change.
While this bill would be adequate at addressing some aspects of the social problem, it is
just a starting point for the regulation of these types of facilities. It is likely that, if this bill is
passed, future bills may be proposed to increase regulation depending on how much this
legislation positively impacts the community. It would adequately address the social problem,
however, as it really begins the regulation of these facilities that, prior to this bill, are legally
unregulated and can go unlicensed and without background checks of any employees or
volunteers.
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
9!
This bill is also very clear and measurable. The bill provides clarity by defining each term
to avoid loopholes and misunderstandings. As aforementioned, it has defined family day homes
and the requirements necessary to be considered a family day home as well as defining what
people who operate these facilities need to do if the bill is passed into law. It additionally defines
what a child is, which children count, who should be background checked, and much more that
helps the bill be very easily understood. Licensing and background checks are government-
controlled aspects of the bill, thus making the impacts of the bill very measurable as well. As
family day homes meeting the requirements begin getting licensed, it will be easy to see how
many this bill impacts and it will be easier for the government to ensure that all people who are
supposed to be having background checks are following regulation and being background
checked.
This bill would impact the stigma of family day homes overall. It will turn the locally
based, unregulated day care operations to be licensed, making them more trustworthy and safe.
Safety will also be increased with the background check requirements. This bill could potentially
make family day homes more professional and they will likely still be more affordable than day
care agencies. With the lower prices and the fact that the bill will increase trust among parents, it
will make family day homes a much better option for childcare and it is likely that more parents
will feel comfortable leaving their children under the care of a family day home facility.
The impacts of this bill could be seen as negative by some, however, as it would cause an
increase in intrusiveness. Many who advocate for privacy would be against a bill proposing more
background checks for any reason. However, these background checks are voluntary, as only
people who wish to work for a family day home agency would have to undergo them. While it is
more intrusive in that people who reside in the household would have to undergo background
!
9!
This bill is also very clear and measurable. The bill provides clarity by defining each term
to avoid loopholes and misunderstandings. As aforementioned, it has defined family day homes
and the requirements necessary to be considered a family day home as well as defining what
people who operate these facilities need to do if the bill is passed into law. It additionally defines
what a child is, which children count, who should be background checked, and much more that
helps the bill be very easily understood. Licensing and background checks are government-
controlled aspects of the bill, thus making the impacts of the bill very measurable as well. As
family day homes meeting the requirements begin getting licensed, it will be easy to see how
many this bill impacts and it will be easier for the government to ensure that all people who are
supposed to be having background checks are following regulation and being background
checked.
This bill would impact the stigma of family day homes overall. It will turn the locally
based, unregulated day care operations to be licensed, making them more trustworthy and safe.
Safety will also be increased with the background check requirements. This bill could potentially
make family day homes more professional and they will likely still be more affordable than day
care agencies. With the lower prices and the fact that the bill will increase trust among parents, it
will make family day homes a much better option for childcare and it is likely that more parents
will feel comfortable leaving their children under the care of a family day home facility.
The impacts of this bill could be seen as negative by some, however, as it would cause an
increase in intrusiveness. Many who advocate for privacy would be against a bill proposing more
background checks for any reason. However, these background checks are voluntary, as only
people who wish to work for a family day home agency would have to undergo them. While it is
more intrusive in that people who reside in the household would have to undergo background
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
10!
checks, all in all it promotes the safety of children and, if one does not want to be background
checked, in most cases they can choose not to be associated with the family day home and thus
they would not have to feel intruded on. In addition, according to Travis Fain (2015) of the Daily
Press, there is concern that the bill “goes too far, allowing government oversight of family
arrangements.” Issues like these have been a major topic of debate as the bill has gone between
the House of Representatives of Virginia and the Senate of Virginia, as most bills involving any
potential invasion of privacy and personal rights often are.
Recommendations & Conclusions
As stated above, this bill would likely be very effective at moving towards solving the
social problem as a whole and most of the benefits outweigh the costs. While the bill may be
seen as intrusive due to the background check requirements, it would improve the stigma of
family day homes, it is clear and measurable, and it will be adequate in helping to regulate
family day homes. As of now, there is little that needs to be changed about this bill and the way
that the legislation proposes the government goes about regulating family day homes. One issue
that should be addressed or written into the bill, however, is the way that the Department of
Social Services will ensure that all family day homes who fit the requirements actually get
licensed. While ensuring that background checks are being done on the family day homes that
follow regulation and get licensed, it is possible that some people will attempt to go unlicensed
with the hopes of saving time and money and keeping their operation from changing. It is
important that a system of some sort be implemented that helps ensure that people are following
through with the law if it is passed.
!
10!
checks, all in all it promotes the safety of children and, if one does not want to be background
checked, in most cases they can choose not to be associated with the family day home and thus
they would not have to feel intruded on. In addition, according to Travis Fain (2015) of the Daily
Press, there is concern that the bill “goes too far, allowing government oversight of family
arrangements.” Issues like these have been a major topic of debate as the bill has gone between
the House of Representatives of Virginia and the Senate of Virginia, as most bills involving any
potential invasion of privacy and personal rights often are.
Recommendations & Conclusions
As stated above, this bill would likely be very effective at moving towards solving the
social problem as a whole and most of the benefits outweigh the costs. While the bill may be
seen as intrusive due to the background check requirements, it would improve the stigma of
family day homes, it is clear and measurable, and it will be adequate in helping to regulate
family day homes. As of now, there is little that needs to be changed about this bill and the way
that the legislation proposes the government goes about regulating family day homes. One issue
that should be addressed or written into the bill, however, is the way that the Department of
Social Services will ensure that all family day homes who fit the requirements actually get
licensed. While ensuring that background checks are being done on the family day homes that
follow regulation and get licensed, it is possible that some people will attempt to go unlicensed
with the hopes of saving time and money and keeping their operation from changing. It is
important that a system of some sort be implemented that helps ensure that people are following
through with the law if it is passed.
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
11!
References
Fain, T. (2015). Virginia day care legislation moving through General Assembly. Daily Press.
Hanger, E. (2015). Senate Bill 1168: Family day homes and child day centers; local government
to report business licenses issued.
Schweers, J. (2009). Volunteers screened before working with children, elderly. USA Today.
Virginia Department of Social Services (2014). Family Day Homes (FDH). Retrieved from
http://www.dss.virginia.gov/
!
11!
References
Fain, T. (2015). Virginia day care legislation moving through General Assembly. Daily Press.
Hanger, E. (2015). Senate Bill 1168: Family day homes and child day centers; local government
to report business licenses issued.
Schweers, J. (2009). Volunteers screened before working with children, elderly. USA Today.
Virginia Department of Social Services (2014). Family Day Homes (FDH). Retrieved from
http://www.dss.virginia.gov/
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
12!
Appendix
Stakeholder Contact Log
Organization/Affiliation!Name!Contact!
Information!
Contacts!Made:!!include!date,!time,!
method!
Stakeholders,Who,Support,!!!
!
!
Family!Day!Home!
Owner/Operator!
Ethel!Golden!757U244U
6525!
First!contact:!2/4,!4pm,!phone!call!
(no!answer)!
!
Second!contact:!2/17,!2:30pm,!
phone!call,!answered!and!said!she!
supported!the!bill!!
I!described!the!bill!and!how!it!would!
impact!her!and!asked!her!how!she!
would!feel!about!such!a!bill.!I!
explained!the!potential!costs!of!the!
bill!and!how!it!would!also!impact!
other!people!living!or!coming!to!the!
household.!!
Small,!homeUbased!day!
care!!
!
!
Diane!Merrill!207U671U
2993!
First!contact:!2/2,!3:45pm,!email!(as!
requested),!no!response!
!
Second!contact:!2/17,!2:45pm,!
phone!call,!answered!and!said!she!
supported!the!bill!
I!described!the!bill!and!how!it!would!
impact!her!and!asked!her!how!she!
would!feel!about!such!a!bill.!I!
explained!the!potential!costs!of!the!
bill!and!how!it!would!also!impact!
other!people!who!lived!or!came!to!
the!household.!!
!
Newport!News!Department!
of!Human!Services,!Child!
Welfare!Services!
!
Secretary,!
director!was!
not!available.!!
757U926U
6300!
First!contact:!2/5,!10:00am!through!
email,!no!response.!!
!
Second!contact:!2/17,!3:30pm,!
phone!call,!answered!and!said!that!
the!agency!would!likely!support!the!
bill!because!it!promotes!for!child!
welfare!and!the!safety!of!children.!!
I!described!the!bill!and!how!it!would!
impact!family!day!homes!and!
volunteers,!as!well!as!people!in!the!
household,!and!the!fact!that!it!would!
require!more!regulation!in!terms!of!
licensing!and!how!the!background!
checks!would!cost!money!to!the!day!
homes.!!
!
12!
Appendix
Stakeholder Contact Log
Organization/Affiliation!Name!Contact!
Information!
Contacts!Made:!!include!date,!time,!
method!
Stakeholders,Who,Support,!!!
!
!
Family!Day!Home!
Owner/Operator!
Ethel!Golden!757U244U
6525!
First!contact:!2/4,!4pm,!phone!call!
(no!answer)!
!
Second!contact:!2/17,!2:30pm,!
phone!call,!answered!and!said!she!
supported!the!bill!!
I!described!the!bill!and!how!it!would!
impact!her!and!asked!her!how!she!
would!feel!about!such!a!bill.!I!
explained!the!potential!costs!of!the!
bill!and!how!it!would!also!impact!
other!people!living!or!coming!to!the!
household.!!
Small,!homeUbased!day!
care!!
!
!
Diane!Merrill!207U671U
2993!
First!contact:!2/2,!3:45pm,!email!(as!
requested),!no!response!
!
Second!contact:!2/17,!2:45pm,!
phone!call,!answered!and!said!she!
supported!the!bill!
I!described!the!bill!and!how!it!would!
impact!her!and!asked!her!how!she!
would!feel!about!such!a!bill.!I!
explained!the!potential!costs!of!the!
bill!and!how!it!would!also!impact!
other!people!who!lived!or!came!to!
the!household.!!
!
Newport!News!Department!
of!Human!Services,!Child!
Welfare!Services!
!
Secretary,!
director!was!
not!available.!!
757U926U
6300!
First!contact:!2/5,!10:00am!through!
email,!no!response.!!
!
Second!contact:!2/17,!3:30pm,!
phone!call,!answered!and!said!that!
the!agency!would!likely!support!the!
bill!because!it!promotes!for!child!
welfare!and!the!safety!of!children.!!
I!described!the!bill!and!how!it!would!
impact!family!day!homes!and!
volunteers,!as!well!as!people!in!the!
household,!and!the!fact!that!it!would!
require!more!regulation!in!terms!of!
licensing!and!how!the!background!
checks!would!cost!money!to!the!day!
homes.!!
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
13!
!
Father!of!children!who!
were!previously!in!a!family!
day!home!
!
(I!had!trouble!finding!a!
parent!locally!who!still!had!
children!in!day!homes)!
!
Mark!
Schneider!!
703U863U
9215!
First!contact:!2/17,!6pm,!phone!call,!
answered!and!said!he!would!
support!such!a!bill!because!he!would!
want!to!know!that!the!people!taking!
care!of!his!children!were!not!
criminals!and!that!they!are!safe!to!
be!working!with!my!children.!!
I!described!the!bill!and!how!it!would!
impact!the!day!homes!and!
potentially!raise!costs!for!parents!or!
day!care!providers!and!who!would!
be!required!to!have!background!
checks!under!the!bill!and,!even!after!
discussing!the!potential!increases!in!
price,!asked!how!he!felt:!he!
supported!it.!!
Patron!of!the!Bill!Emmett!
Hanger’s!
Legislative!
Aide!!
804U698U
7524!
First!contact!2/17:!2pm,!phone!call.!
Talked!to!his!legislative!aide!because!
he!was!not!in!at!the!time.!!
Legislative!aide!stated!that!Hanger!
proposed!the!bill!because!the!safety!
of!the!children!was!important!and!
that!it!is!important!that!facilities!like!
family!day!homes!are!regulated.!The!
legislative!aide!did!not!know!why!
exactly!Emmett!proposed!this!bill!in!
particular,!but!stated!that!he!had!
children!and!grandchildren!and!
valued!their!safety!and!the!safety!of!
all!children.!!
I!mentioned!the!bill!and!asked!his!
legislative!aide!why!Hanger!
proposed!the!legislation!and!if!there!
was!any!way!this!legislation!
personally!impacted!him!or!made!
him!support!it.!!!
Stakeholders,Who,Oppose,!!!
Delegate!Brenda!Pogge!!Delegate!
Pogge’s!
Legislative!
Aide/Travis!
Fain!of!the!
Daily!Press!!
804U698U
1096!
First!contact!2/24:!2pm,!phone!call.!
Talked!to!her!legislative!aide,!who!
did!not!want!to!talk!very!much!
because!I!was!not!a!constituent!and!
the!bill!had!already!been!voted!on.!!
I!asked!about!the!reference!to!
Delegate!Pogge!in!Fain’s!article!and!
the!reasons!Fain!stated!as!to!why!
Pogge!did!not!like!it,!and!the!
legislative!aide!agreed!that!this!was!
correct,!but!would!not!discuss!it!
much!further.!!
!
13!
!
Father!of!children!who!
were!previously!in!a!family!
day!home!
!
(I!had!trouble!finding!a!
parent!locally!who!still!had!
children!in!day!homes)!
!
Mark!
Schneider!!
703U863U
9215!
First!contact:!2/17,!6pm,!phone!call,!
answered!and!said!he!would!
support!such!a!bill!because!he!would!
want!to!know!that!the!people!taking!
care!of!his!children!were!not!
criminals!and!that!they!are!safe!to!
be!working!with!my!children.!!
I!described!the!bill!and!how!it!would!
impact!the!day!homes!and!
potentially!raise!costs!for!parents!or!
day!care!providers!and!who!would!
be!required!to!have!background!
checks!under!the!bill!and,!even!after!
discussing!the!potential!increases!in!
price,!asked!how!he!felt:!he!
supported!it.!!
Patron!of!the!Bill!Emmett!
Hanger’s!
Legislative!
Aide!!
804U698U
7524!
First!contact!2/17:!2pm,!phone!call.!
Talked!to!his!legislative!aide!because!
he!was!not!in!at!the!time.!!
Legislative!aide!stated!that!Hanger!
proposed!the!bill!because!the!safety!
of!the!children!was!important!and!
that!it!is!important!that!facilities!like!
family!day!homes!are!regulated.!The!
legislative!aide!did!not!know!why!
exactly!Emmett!proposed!this!bill!in!
particular,!but!stated!that!he!had!
children!and!grandchildren!and!
valued!their!safety!and!the!safety!of!
all!children.!!
I!mentioned!the!bill!and!asked!his!
legislative!aide!why!Hanger!
proposed!the!legislation!and!if!there!
was!any!way!this!legislation!
personally!impacted!him!or!made!
him!support!it.!!!
Stakeholders,Who,Oppose,!!!
Delegate!Brenda!Pogge!!Delegate!
Pogge’s!
Legislative!
Aide/Travis!
Fain!of!the!
Daily!Press!!
804U698U
1096!
First!contact!2/24:!2pm,!phone!call.!
Talked!to!her!legislative!aide,!who!
did!not!want!to!talk!very!much!
because!I!was!not!a!constituent!and!
the!bill!had!already!been!voted!on.!!
I!asked!about!the!reference!to!
Delegate!Pogge!in!Fain’s!article!and!
the!reasons!Fain!stated!as!to!why!
Pogge!did!not!like!it,!and!the!
legislative!aide!agreed!that!this!was!
correct,!but!would!not!discuss!it!
much!further.!!
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
14!
Interview Questions
1. Have you heard of Senate Bill 1168: “Family day homes and child day centers; local government
to report business licenses issued”? (If no, I would explain the bill)
2. Considering your position as a(n) _______ (family day home owner, patron of the bill, member
of the House of Delegates, parent…), do you feel this bill would have a large impact on you/your
business/your life? (Depending on their position, I would mention various impacts this bill would
have on them personally, to ensure a knowledgeable discussion as to whether or not they would
support such a bill).
3. What problems do you see with such a bill?
4. Do you believe this bill is necessary?
5. Do you support this legislation? If not, what would need to be changed for you to be in support of
it?
6. Do you have any additional comments or opinions on the legislation?
7. If any more questions arise concerning this legislation, would you mind if I contacted you in the
future?
!
14!
Interview Questions
1. Have you heard of Senate Bill 1168: “Family day homes and child day centers; local government
to report business licenses issued”? (If no, I would explain the bill)
2. Considering your position as a(n) _______ (family day home owner, patron of the bill, member
of the House of Delegates, parent…), do you feel this bill would have a large impact on you/your
business/your life? (Depending on their position, I would mention various impacts this bill would
have on them personally, to ensure a knowledgeable discussion as to whether or not they would
support such a bill).
3. What problems do you see with such a bill?
4. Do you believe this bill is necessary?
5. Do you support this legislation? If not, what would need to be changed for you to be in support of
it?
6. Do you have any additional comments or opinions on the legislation?
7. If any more questions arise concerning this legislation, would you mind if I contacted you in the
future?
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
15!
Pitch Presentation Outline
• Who I am
o My name is Ashley Marks. I am studying social work with one of my main interests
being the safety of children. I believe that one of the most important things is children
and their safety and wellbeing, as they will be our future.
o Personal story: I grew up under the care of AuPairs, as my parents both worked full time.
Many of my friends were cared for by what would be defined now as a family day home.
While none of my friends had any negative experiences that I know of, the lack of
regulation of these types of facilities meant that anyone, even criminals, could be caring
for the children. Due to my personal experience being cared for by someone who was a
complete stranger at first, I know that I would have wanted the people who cared for me
to be background checked.
• The bill
o The bill that is being proposed is SB1168, Family day homes and child day centers; local
government to report business licenses issued.
o The main change this bill makes is in requiring family day homes with five or more
children, including children in the family that are under the age of six, to be licensed and
do background checks on all volunteers and employees at the family day home.
• Why you should support it
o This bill is extremely important, as it is the first step in regulations that are vital for the
safety of children. Because family day homes are a cheaper means of childcare, many
parents put their children in the trust of people with no way of knowing if they are
criminals, as background checks and licensure are not currently required by law for these
facilities.
!
15!
Pitch Presentation Outline
• Who I am
o My name is Ashley Marks. I am studying social work with one of my main interests
being the safety of children. I believe that one of the most important things is children
and their safety and wellbeing, as they will be our future.
o Personal story: I grew up under the care of AuPairs, as my parents both worked full time.
Many of my friends were cared for by what would be defined now as a family day home.
While none of my friends had any negative experiences that I know of, the lack of
regulation of these types of facilities meant that anyone, even criminals, could be caring
for the children. Due to my personal experience being cared for by someone who was a
complete stranger at first, I know that I would have wanted the people who cared for me
to be background checked.
• The bill
o The bill that is being proposed is SB1168, Family day homes and child day centers; local
government to report business licenses issued.
o The main change this bill makes is in requiring family day homes with five or more
children, including children in the family that are under the age of six, to be licensed and
do background checks on all volunteers and employees at the family day home.
• Why you should support it
o This bill is extremely important, as it is the first step in regulations that are vital for the
safety of children. Because family day homes are a cheaper means of childcare, many
parents put their children in the trust of people with no way of knowing if they are
criminals, as background checks and licensure are not currently required by law for these
facilities.
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
16!
o If this legislation is not passed, it is possible that children are at risk for being cared for
by drug addicts, people charged with domestic abuse, etc. Our children need protection
and the way to ensure that children in these situations are protected under the law is
through this legislation.
!
16!
o If this legislation is not passed, it is possible that children are at risk for being cared for
by drug addicts, people charged with domestic abuse, etc. Our children need protection
and the way to ensure that children in these situations are protected under the law is
through this legislation.
! POLICY!PORTFOLIO:!SB!1168!
!
17!
Ashley Marks
7800 Montvale Way
McLean, VA 22102
(703) 477-3229
January 20, 2015
The Honorable Senate Barbara Favola
Senate of Virginia
Richmond, VA 23218
Dear Senator Favola:
I am writing as a constituent to tell you my story and express my hope that you will vote in favor
of Senator Hanger’s Senate Bill 1168, which supports the regulation of family day homes and
background checks on all employees and volunteers of such facilities
As a child, both of my parents worked full time. I was raised largely by AuPairs and other
caregivers that my parents had to put their full trust in. I was lucky enough to have background
checks done on the people who cared for me to ensure for my safety, but many children today
are being cared for in unregulated family day homes with people who have not undergone
background checks and could potentially be putting children in danger. These children deserve to
be safe and parents should feel comfortable leaving there children in the more affordable option
of a family day home.
Senator Hanger’s bill is a vital step in promoting legislation for the safety of children. It would
make a significant change in the lives of your constituents and everyone in Virginia as the
children would be safely cared for and the parents would be happy knowing their children are in
good hands. Please support Senator Hanger’s bill for the regulation of family day homes. I would
appreciate it if you let me know of your action in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ashley Marks
!
!
17!
Ashley Marks
7800 Montvale Way
McLean, VA 22102
(703) 477-3229
January 20, 2015
The Honorable Senate Barbara Favola
Senate of Virginia
Richmond, VA 23218
Dear Senator Favola:
I am writing as a constituent to tell you my story and express my hope that you will vote in favor
of Senator Hanger’s Senate Bill 1168, which supports the regulation of family day homes and
background checks on all employees and volunteers of such facilities
As a child, both of my parents worked full time. I was raised largely by AuPairs and other
caregivers that my parents had to put their full trust in. I was lucky enough to have background
checks done on the people who cared for me to ensure for my safety, but many children today
are being cared for in unregulated family day homes with people who have not undergone
background checks and could potentially be putting children in danger. These children deserve to
be safe and parents should feel comfortable leaving there children in the more affordable option
of a family day home.
Senator Hanger’s bill is a vital step in promoting legislation for the safety of children. It would
make a significant change in the lives of your constituents and everyone in Virginia as the
children would be safely cared for and the parents would be happy knowing their children are in
good hands. Please support Senator Hanger’s bill for the regulation of family day homes. I would
appreciate it if you let me know of your action in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ashley Marks
!
Tags
Categories
GeneralDownload
Download Slideshow Get the original presentation fileQuick Actions
Statistics
- Views 32,711
- Slides 17
- Favorites 4
- Age 3856 days
Related Slideshows
22
Pray For The Peace Of Jerusalem and You Will Prosper
RodolfoMoralesMarcuc
35 views
26
Don_t_Waste_Your_Life_God.....powerpoint
chalobrido8
38 views
31
VILLASUR_FACTORS_TO_CONSIDER_IN_PLATING_SALAD_10-13.pdf
JaiJai148317
34 views
14
Fertility awareness methods for women in the society
Isaiah47
31 views
35
Chapter 5 Arithmetic Functions Computer Organisation and Architecture
RitikSharma297999
30 views
5
syakira bhasa inggris (1) (1).pptx.......
ourcommunity56
31 views